Is There a Life Beyond the Grave?

Charles Watts

A Reply to R.B. Westbrook, AM., D.D.

It has been aptly remarked that it does not necessarily follow, because an opponent has been replied to,
that his arguments
have been answered. The truth of this statement never appeared to me so evident as when I read the
comments of Dr.
Westbrook (which appeared in SECULAR THOUGHT of the 2nd and 9th of December last) on my lecture, "Is
there a Life
Beyond the Grave?" Instead of endeavoring to refute my arguments, the doctor contented himself with
presenting to the reader
a conglomeration of meaningless phrases, contradictory statements, and reckless assertions. His article,
moreover, was marred
by undignified imputation, more indicative of an irritable schoolboy, who had undertaken a task which he
found himself unable
to perform, than of a debater who felt conscious of his ability to refute the arguments of his opponent. To
designate my lecture
as "flimsy argument," and to suggest that I "cavilled," but without attempting by any ordinary reasoning
process to prove his
statements, was a marked specimen of controversial weakness. Dr. Westbrook's elegant (?) remark, "Did
he (Mr. Watts) not
bellow and paw up the dirt, and rush around furiously with hay on his horns like a wild bull of Bashan, for
an hour and a half?"
was a proof that in his case "a firm faith in a future state" has not had a "salutiry influence." Such vulgar
imputations may be the
result of an "evil spirit;" but it is opposed to that material refinement and courtesy which as a rule
characterize a real gentleman
in controversy. The only "dirt" that I "pawed up" consisted in exposing the fallacies indulged in by those
who assume a
knowledge which they do not possess. That some of the "dirt" fell on Dr. Westbrook is clear from the
blemishes that disfigure
his reply to me.

The doctor commences by saying: "I do not accept the ordinary distinctions which are made in speaking of
man, as consisting
of a body and soul. The body is not the man, the soul is not the man, the mind is not the man; but it
requires what is intended
by these three terms, and much more, to make a man." Now, what is the "much more" here referred to? If
there is something
more in man than "body, soul and mind," the doctor should have stated what it is. Again, he says: "I make
no distinction
between the material and immaterial, the natural and the supernatural, as I do not know where to draw the
line." Then, if he
makes no distinction and if he knows not where to draw the line, why does he mention the "supernatural"
at all, particularly
when he further observes "I can think of nothing separate from matter"? If he is correct in this last
assertion, he by his own
confession knows nothing of any "supernatural," and any "argument," therefore, drawn from such
meaningless phrases must be
"flimsy" indeed.

Dr. Westbrook alleges that I admit that the doctrine of future life "is beyond the limits of controversy. If he
(Mr. Watts) has any
logical argument that could be used against the theory of a future life would he not have produced it?" I
have made no such
admission; on the contrary, my lecture was a proof that, in my opinion, the doctrine did come within "the
limits of controversy."
Surely there is a difference between debating a doctrine and admitting that what the doctrine represents is
capable of
demonstration. "The fact is," as the doctor observes, "it is easy to cavil." As to my producing arguments
against the theory of a
future life, that is precisely what I did in my lecture but whether they were "logical" or not the doctor made
no effort to show.
For instance, I pointed out that the term "soul" has never been defined; that, if we possess one, it is not
known in what part of
the body it is to be found, or when it enters or when it leaves the human frame; that the only "soul" known
is the brain of man,
and if that brain does not properly exercise its functions, the manifestations of life will be proportionally
impaired. In proof of
this I referred to persons in lunatic asylums who had diseased brains, whose judgment was dethroned, and
whose reason had
deserted them. Had the soul, I asked, in their case lost its power of control? If so, what is its value? When
a drunkard
becomes intoxicated and loses all control over himself has his soul lost its power? Again, as regards the
"soul" leaving the body,
I enquired if it did so immediately at death, if it goes straight to heaven, or hell, without waiting for the
judgment day? If it does
not leave the body, till some time after death, how can a decaying body retain the soul? To any one of
these questions the
doctor did not even attempt to give an answer.

Further quoting from "The Creed of Science," by Professor Graham. I showed that science taught that
immortality is not and
cannot be proved, that the chief function of the brain is that which is known by the term "mental activity"
that nothing is known,
and nothing can be known of a life beyond the grave, In support of my contention I produced the evidence
of several scientific
men concluding with the testimony of the late Professor Tyndell, who said: "But to return to the hypothesis
of a human soul,
offered as an explanation or a simplification of a series of obscure phenomena. Adequate reflection shows
that, instead of
introducing light into our minds, it increases our darkness. You do not, in this case, explain the unknown in
terms of the known,
which is the method of science, but you explain the unknown in terms of the more unknown." Now, upon all
this Dr.
Westbrook was silent in his reply, and he coolly asserted that I produced no "logical argument" against the
theory of a future
life. If what I did produce were illogical, why did not the doctor endeavor to prove this was so?

I am further charged with denying a future life, whereas in my lecture I distinctly stated in answer to the
question, "If a man die
shall he live again?" that by its very nature, and by the very nature of our mentality, it is utterly impossible
to give a definite
opinion pro or con. Referring to Spiritualism, I said that I had studied it for five years, and had found
nothing in it; not that I
wished to deny that there might be something but -- depending on my own reason and judgment, by
which I stand or fall -- I
had found nothing. But, says Dr. Westbrook, "What does this prove? Why, that Mr, Watts did not find
anything in
Spiritualism! But does his failure show that nobody else ever succeeded? Does he know every thing?" Of
course my failure to
discover anything in Spiritualism only proves what I stated, that I found nothing in it. It is not my custom
to dogmatize as to
what others have seen, or thought they have seen. I am reminded that I don't "know everything" That is
so, and in this particular
the doctor and myself are on equal terms. I am asked if I can "mention one thing which man actually
desires, which has not a
palpable existence." Certainly I can. Men desire universal happiness, justice for all, and a fair distribution of
wealth, but these
conditions have no "palpable existence."

I repeat that it is impossible to long for that of which nothing is known. The doctor takes exception to this,
but he gives no
instance to prove that I am wrong. If, as he says, -- "Life beyond the grave is this: a continuation of the
present life, nothing
more, nothing less," then the future is not another life, and the doctor has to show how the "continuation
of the present life" can
go on in the absence of the conditions that we know are necessary to its manifestations now. We have
positive proof that the
body, including the brain, the heart and the lungs, are indispensable to what we term life; let it, therefore,
be shown how this life
can continue when the body and its organs have disappeared. The doctor, however, refutes himself, for he
says that in the next
world we shall be "as the angels," and not subject to the conditions that govern us here. If this will be so, it
will be another life
after all, inasmuch as existence here is not regulated on the "angelic" principle, therefore, continuity ceases.

Apart from such "flimsy arguments" as the above, the doctor bases his belief in "a life beyond the grave"
upon the opinions of
great men, the alleged universality of the belief and the general desire that is supposed to exist for such a
life. As these
objections to the Agnostic position involve probably the strongest arguments that can be urged in favor of
a future life, I shall
examine, them one by one.

Dr. Westbrook, in his reply, does not content himself by modestly asking, "Is there a life beyond the
grave?" but he positively
asserts that there is such an existence, This is a bold allegation, to prove the truth of which will require
more knowledge than
the doctor has hitherto given evidence that he possesses. What is meant by the term "life"? Our answer is,
that we only know
of it as "functional activity" in organized existence, such as we behold in the animal and vegetal kingdoms.
The question,
however, of a future life concerns chiefly man, who possesses an organism and functions of various kinds.
Before we can
accept as true, the statement "there is a life beyond the grave," we must have some knowledge of the
conditions of that
supposed existence, and whether or not they are suitable to man as we now know him. But up to the
present we have not met
any one who possesses the required knowledge and, therefore, no information is forthcoming as to the
nature of a future life.
We certainly decline to accept the proposition as being self-evident. If, as the doctor alleges, there is
presumptive in favor of a
future life, the most that can be reasonably argued is that there may be such a life. Of course we do not
contend that a visit to
the planet Mars would be necessary before we could believe that life existed there, but we do assert that
some kind of
communication with the inhabitants would be necessary before we could positively allege that life was there.
It is not
unreasonable to demand at least reliable testimony in matters beyond our experience. It is one thing to
have a mind open to
conviction, and quite another to meet the man who can convince us. When similar evidence is presented in
favor of future
existence to that which obtains for the operation of natural law throughout the universe, and when such
evidence can be tested
by the ordinary rules of observation and experiment, the question of a life beyond the grave will deserve
serious consideration.

The doctor's proposition, although put in the positive form, is really an assumption, based on the fact of
the continuity of life on
our globe. But what is understood by such continuity? Simply a succession of animated forms of existence,
beings who
continue to possess the attributes of life, in whom the living principle appears in a series of individual
representations. But a life
beyond the grave involves much more than this; it assumes a continuity of life in the same individual, a
condition of which we
know nothing. Man exists generation after generation, but every succeeding one is new. Life on this globe
ceases in the
individual man when his organism becomes disintegrated and when its functions are unable to continue their
operations. Death
is a condition the very opposite to that of life; both therefore cannot be conceived as being one, as the
doctor's contention
requires. A living dead man is a contradiction, for it is a self-evident fact that if man always lived he Would
never die. Death
occurs every moment, but we have no instance of the perpetual continuation of one living individual. A body
in action must be
present, somewhere, but. when it has disappeared in the grave and gone to ashes, it is no longer in
organized body. In other
words, a body must act where it is, or where it is not. It cannot act where it is, in the grave, for there its
functions have ceased;
it cannot act elsewhere because it is not there to act; This appears as self-evident as that the whole is
greater than the part. The
denial, that a future state has been proved is held to be the converse of the proposition that there is one,
and therefore it is
equally unphilosophical and presumptuous. People fail to discriminate between the thing itself and what is
said about it, although
there is a manifest difference between the two cases. What we deny is the validity of the evidence, the
conclusiveness of the
reasons given in support of the theory of a future life.

The doctor relies much upon what great men have said and written on the subject. Of course the opinions
of eminent men are
entitled to respect, but they are also open to dispute, inasmuch as all men are fallible. Great men have
entertained the most
erroneous and childish ideas. We must not confound Newton and the apple with Newton and the Bible, nor
Faraday the
chemist with Faraday the Muggletonian. Our estimate of great men is based upon what they do or what,
they prove. When
they defend the abominations of slavery and witchcraft, or when they give their support to miracles and
orthodox doctrines,
because they are sanctioned by the Bible, we change our estimate of them. Great men have held mistaken
views about
creation, the laws of motion, and the possessible disappearance of all existing things, but that is no reason
why the humblest of
their fellow men should endorse their mistakes. Professor Wallace's views on development may be,
accepted, if the facts he
submits prove his case, and so also may his other views be accepted for the same reason. But in our
opinion his contentions in
reference to a future life cannot be proved by candid investigation and sound reasoning.

The alleged universality of opinion is quoted by Dr. Westbrook as a proof of the reality of a future life. The
fact is the belief in
all kinds of error has been general in all ages and in all nations. Because the multitude once believed in the
moving sun, in the
stationary earth and in the existence of angels and devils, it is no conclusive proof to us that their belief
was correct. Have we
then the audacity to reject the verdict of ages, and to declare that the majority of men have been
mistaken? On certain matters
we do so most decidedly, for the reason that nothing is clearer to-day than that our forefathers were
wrong upon many things
which were objects of "universal belief." The notion that the stars were drawn by the gods or guided by
spirits, has had to give
way before the discoveries of attraction and gravitation, and the creation theory is refuted by the facts of
evolution. Those who
base their faith in a future life on the common beliefs are like the man who is said to have built his house
upon the sand. The
flood of science will sweep all false beliefs away, as surely as the morning sun disperses the vapors of the
night.

The doctor fires off his syllogistic cannon and he supposes that we are fatally wounded. But it is not so, for
we would remind
the doctor that the value of a syllogism depends mostly upon the first premiss. For instance, take the
following: "The future will
be a continuance of the present, the present is manifest and undisputable, therefore, so is the future." Now
if the first premiss
were proved, the conclusion may follow, but as it is only an assumption, based on general belief and on
great men's opinions,
the conclusion is also of the same nature, and is a part of the assumption. Dr. Westbrook ought to know
that the greatest
absurdity might be made to appear feasible to the uneducated mind by the syllogistic mode of pleading. For
instance, "Nothing
is better than heaven, a chop is better than nothing, therefore a chop is better than heaven."

It is commonly held that any conception formed by man must have a corresponding reality somewhere. Yet
the conception
which was formed as to the origin of things has been shown by modern researches to be absolutely
groundless in reality,
Modern investigation has exploded the old theories of the genesis of things. Men have had to unlearn much
that the dame
schools taught and that the Sunday-school endorsed. Take the illustration of the general conception of the
dragon. We may be
able to trace the idea to some extinct animal but that does not prove the existence of the dragon or attest
the truth of the belief
that such an animal ever existed. If an artist paints a picture of the Devil it is perfectly certain that his
Satanic Majesty never sat
for the portrait.

Perhaps the strongest element in the argument for a future life is derived from what is called the desires of
mankind. These, it is
said, must be accounted for, which we think can easily be done. We submit that the instinctive love of life
found in man is
sufficient to explain the desire for its continuation. No doubt there is some connection between desires and
their realization in
reference to things that are attainable, for the very desire may be a factor in the sum of the causes that
enable us to realize our
ideal. But the mere fact of having the desire is no evidence that its realization will follow. A desire for food
and comfort is very
general, but many are destitute of both. The longing that all members of the human family should be
equally well off is extensive,
but such an enviable state of things does not exist. We must not, in reasoning, take refuge in
incongruities. Those who argue
that without an endless future, this life is not worth having, must regard the present existence as being
exceedingly defective.
Why, then, should its continuation be desired? And yet the doctor argues for a prolongation of such a life.
If it is said that in
another world there will be a change for the better, we ask, where is the proof that any improvement will
take place? It is
another instance that the wish is father to the thought. Endless existence and interminable motion may be
laws of thought which
it is impossible to banish from our minds, although we are unable to conceive of an infinite past, which is
involved in the
statement. But it is otherwise with the forms of existence that possess life, these can be conceived of as
coming to an end.
Intense heat or intense cold may terminate all living things in a brief space of time. The truth is that it is
only dreamers who
contend that any part of the compound being called man will

"flourish in immorial youth,
Unhurt amidst the war of elements,
The wrecks of matter, and the crash of worlds."

Many persons who do not admit that Secularism is the best

philosophy of existence, acknowledge that its principles are excellent so far as this life is concerned; but
they assert that those
principles are insufficient to sustain its believers in the hour of death. With a view of showing that this
position is not a sound
one, and that it misrepresents the Secular views as to death, we purpose answering the following three
queries, which are
frequently put by our opponents.

1.What are the Secular views in reference to death?
2.Is there sufficient reason to justify the Agnostic attitude as to a future life?
3.Is the Secular position a safe one?

In the first place, what are the Secular views as to death? They are these. That there is not sufficient
evidence to justify the
assertion that there is, or that there is not, a life beyond the grave. Many centuries ago, an oriental sage is
said to have asked,
"If a man die, Shall he live again? Although many generations have passed away since the supposed query
was submitted, no
definite or satisfactory answer has been given. It is a problem to the solution of which the philosopher has
devoted his wisdom,
the poet has dedicated his poetry, and the scientist has directed his attention, and yet the problem remains
unsolved.
Secularists, therefore, agree with Thomas Carlyle when he said: What went before, and what will follow me,
I regard as two
impenetrable curtains which hang down at the two extremities of human life, and which no man has drawn
aside." The
Secularists adopt, in reference to a future life, the Agnostic position, and they refuse to dogmatize, either
pro or con., upon a
matter in reference to which, with the present limited knowledge in the world, it is impossible to KNOW
anything. Mr. Hugh
O. Pentecost thus puts the case; "The Freethinker looks at death just as it is, so far as we know anything
about it -- the end of
life. He does not hope, nor expect to live after death. He admits that he may, just as there may be a planet
in which water runs
up-hill. He therefore maps out his life with absolutely no reference to alleged heavens or hells, or to any
kind of spirit world. He
goes through this world seeking his own welfare and knowing, from the open book of history and his own
experience, that he
can promote his own welfare only by promoting the welfare of every other man, woman and child in the
world; knowing that
he cannot be as happy as he might while anyone else is miserable. He knows that death is as natural as
birth. He knows that, as
we were unconscious of our birth, we will be unconscious of our death. He knows that, if death puts a final
end to him as a
person, as science seems to prove, it cannot be an evil. He suffered nothing before he was; he will suffer
nothing if he ceases to
be. He will not even know that he is dead."

The Secularist accepts this Freethought view of death. He is not sufficiently dogmatic to assert there is an
existence beyond the
present one, neither is he presumptuous enough to say there is not. Knowing only of one existence,
Secularists content
themselves therewith, feeling assured that the best credentials to secure any possible immortality is the
wisest and most
intellectual use of the life we now have. They further allege that, to the man who is sincere and true to his
conscience through
life, "hereafter" has no terrors. The man who has lived well has made the best preparation to die well, and
he will find that the
principles which supported him in health can sustain him in sickness. When the last grand scene arrives, the
Secularist, having
done his duty, lies down quietly to rest, and sleeps the long sleep from which, so far as we know, there is
no waking. What has
he to fear? He knows that death is the consequence of life, that nothing possesses immortality. The plant
that blooms in the
garden, the bird that flutters in the summer sun, the bee that flies from flower to flower, and the lower
animals of every kind, all
pass into a state of unconsciousness when their part is played and their work is done. Why should man be
an exception to the
universal law? His body is built up on the same principle as that of everything else that breathes, and his
mental faculties differ in
degree, but not in character, from theirs. He is subject to the same law as the rest of existence, and to
repine at death is as
absurd as it would be to weep because he did not live in some other planet or at some other time. Nature is
imperative in her
decrees, and must be obeyed. Death is the common lot of all. The atoms of matter of which one organism
is made up are
required for the construction of another, so they must be given up for that purpose, and to repine at it
argues an ill-tutored
mind. The work is done, and if it has been done well there is nothing to fear, either in this or any other life.
Such are the views
of Secularists as to death, and, holding such views, they can die without fear, as they have lived without
hypocrisy.

Now as to the second query -- Is there sufficient reason to justify this Agnostic position? It must be
understood that this
position not only admits the "don't know," but it goes further, and alleges that as we are at present
constituted, we cannot know
of anything beyond the present life. Moreover, be it observed, our position is still more comprehensive than
this; for we
contend that the facts of existence do not substantiate the positive statement that there is a life beyond
the grave. Professor
Graham, in his "Creeds of Science," in giving a summary of modern scientific opinion on this subject,
observes: "And now what
is the scientific doctrine of the great theme of immortality? Is there any hope for man? In one word, No. For
any such hope, if
men must continue to indulge in it after hearing the scientific arguments, they must go elsewhere -- to the
theologian, the
metaphysician, the mystic, the poet. These men, habitually dwelling in their several spheres of illusion and
unreality, may find
suggestions of the phantasy, which they persuade themselves are arguments in favor of a future life; the
man of science, for his
part, and the positive thinker, building on science, consider no proposition more certain than that the soul
is mortal as well as
the body which supported it, and of which it was merely the final flower and product. ... Our modern
physiologist has
ascertained that thought is but a function of the brain and nerves. Why should it not perish with these? ...
Way should it not
collapse with the general break-up of the machinery? Why should it not cease when no longer supported by
the various
physical energies whose transformations within the bodily machine alone made its existence possible? ...
But science, for her
part, finds no grounds for the beliefs of theology or metaphysics in a future life -- beliefs, moreover, which
she regards as little
comforting at the best. ... Science, we think, has made out the dependence of our mind and present
consciousness on bodily
conditions, so far as to justify the conclusion that the dissolution of the body carries with it the dissolution
of our present
consciousness and memory, which are reared on the bodily basis. At least, it raises apprehension in the
highest degree that this
will be the case. Again, Science -- partly by what Darwin has established, partly by other evidence only
recently accessible,
respecting the low state of the primitive man -- has brought the human species into the general circle of
the animal kingdom in a
sense for more deep and essential than was formerly dreamed of; and she has thereby deepened the belief,
though without
producing absolute conviction, that the arguments proving a possible future life for man hold likewise for
the lower animals; so
that if man be judged immortal, they should be also, and if they be mortal, so also is man. Thirdly, Science
has called attention
to the fact that there is something like a general law discoverable in the history of Species, that they all
have their term of years,
though the term is usually a long one, and that probably, therefore, the human Species itself, as well is all
other existing Species,
will disappear, giving place to wholly different, though derivative types of life. And all these things taken
together undoubtedly
tend strongly to produce the conviction that death closes the career of the existing individual." In support
of the conclusions
here arrived at, Professor J.P. Lesley says Science cannot possibly either teach or deny immortality."
professor Lester F.
Ward observes that, "So far as science can speak on the subject, consciousness persists as long as the
organized brain, and no
longer." And Professor E.S. Morse writes I have never yet seen anything in the discoveries of science which
would in the
slightest degree support or strengthen a belief in immorality."

It is alleged that the "soul" is the "thinking principle." If this be so, wherein is man's superiority over the
lower animals so far as
immortality is concerned? Herbert Spencer, Dr. W.B. Carpenter, and many other eminent writers, have
contended that the
reasoning powers in man differ only in degree from those in the general animal kingdom. In other words, if
the above allegation
be correct, the lower animals, as they possess the "thinking principle," have "souls," and will live forever.
Indeed, Bishop Butler
granted this, for he assures us "that there is no true analogy in all nature which would lead us to think that
death will prove the
destruction of a living creation." Moreover, we read in the Bible: "For that which befalleth the sons of man
befalleth the beasts;
even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath: so that a
man hath no
pre-eminence above a beast: for all is vanity." Besides, the thinking principle, so far as we know, depends
upon a mental
organization for its manifestation: is it, therefore, not reasonable to conclude that when the organization is
destroyed the
principle will no longer exist? When the cause is gone the effect must cease.

Those persons who dogmatically assert that there is a future life, erroneously, confound something they
call a "soul" with the
mind and they then assert that the mind is a distinct, entity. Now as Dr. Wigan observes The mind every
anatomist knows to be
a set of functions of the brain, differing only in number and degree from the intellect of animals. Of the mind
we know much, but
of the soul we know nothing. Can the mind, then, be a thing per se, distinct and separate from the body?
No more than the
motion can exist independent of the watch, and all the arguments of theologians and metaphysicians on
this subject are founded
on the confusion of terms." It is said that a future life is proved by the fact that development has been
always taking place in the
organic kingdom. First came animals low in the scale, then of higher and higher type, and so on up to man.
Why, then, it is
asked, may not man pass at death into a still higher condition? Now the merest tyro in logic can recognize
that there is no
analogy whatever in the two cases. The higher animals are not the lower in another stage, but an
improvement upon them, a
new individuality. The only argument that could logically be drawn from the development theory on this
point is that after man
beings of a still higher order might make their appearance, but then they would no more be individual men
of a previous age
than we are the Iguanodons of the "age of reptiles." Besides, all the changes that we know of in the organic
kingdom have
taken place upon the earth, whereas the condition which believers in a future life contend for is to be in
some far-off land of
shadows occupied by what is termed disembodied spirits." The case of the caterpillar is frequently, given as
an illustration of
changes from a lower to a higher state of existence. But the caterpillar becomes transformed into the
butterfly before our eyes;
we can see it in both conditions, and can observe the process of change going on. The butterfly is an
improvement upon the
caterpillar in point of organization, but in every other respect they are both similar. Both are material, and
each is liable to
destruction and decay, The spirit, however, that is supposed to be evolved from the human form at death,
is said to be
immaterial and immortal, and, therefore, totally unlike that material organization from which it has escaped.
The change is not
observed, the body dies and the elements of which it was composed pass into other forms -- this is all that
we see and all that
we know. Beyond this everything is mere conjecture and vague speculation.

As to how the belief in a future life originated, the statement of Professor Graham is a pertinent
explanation. He says A strange
and extravagant fancy that arose one day in the breast of one more aspiring than the rest, became soon
afterwards a wish; the
wish became a fixed idea that drew around itself vain and spurious arguments in its favor; and at length the
fancy, the wish, the
idea, was erected into an established doctrine of belief. Such, in sum, is the natural history of the famous
dogma of a future life.
Not by any means, however, was it a primitive and universal belief of all nations. Arising probably at first
with the Egyptians, it
was only after a long time taken up by the Jews, then, or possibly earlier. by the Greeks, with whom,
however, the life held
out, thin and unsubstantial even at best, was far from being desirable. It was only in the Christian and
Mohammedan religions
that the notion of a future and an eternal life was fully developed, and that the doctrine was erected into a
central and an
essential article of belief.

We now come to the third query -- Is the Secular position a safe one? Our answer is, Yes; for by making
the best of this life,
physically, morally, and intellectually, we are pursuing the wisest course, whatever the issues in reference to
a future life may
be. If there should be another life, the Secularist must share it with his opponent. Our opinions do not
affect the reality in the
slightest degree. If we are to sleep forever, we shall so sleep despite the belief in immortality: and if we are
to live for ever, we
shall so live despite the belief that possibly, death ends all. It must also be remembered that if man
possesses a soul, that soul
will be the better through being in a body that has been properly trained; and if there is to be a future life,
that life will be the
better if the higher duties of the present one have been fully and honestly performed Secularists are,
therefore, safe so far,
inasmuch as they recognize it to be their first duty to cultivate a healthy body, and to endeavor to make
the best, in its highest
sense, of the present existence. Now, in reference to the supposition that we may be punished in case we
are wrong. Our
position is, that if there be a just God, before whom we are to appear to be judged, he will never punish
those to whom he has
not vouchsafed the faculty of seeing beyond the grave because they honestly avowed that their mental
vision was limited to this
side of the tomb. Thus the Secularists feel quite safe as regards any futurity that may be worth having. If
the present be the only
life, then it will be all the more valuable if we give it our undivided attention. If, on the other hand, there is
to be another life,
then, in that case, we have won the right to its advantage, through having been faithful to our convictions,
just to our fellows,
and in having striven to leave the world purer and nobler than we found it. As to the feeling of consolation,
which is said to be
derived from the belief in a future life, we are safe upon this point also. For if there be a life, beyond the
grave, we have the
conviction that our Secular conduct on earth will entitle us to the realization of its fullest pleasure.
Moreover, this conviction is
not marred by the belief that the majority of the human race will be condemned to a fate "which humanity
cannot conceive
without terror, nor contemplate without dismay."

Finally, Secularism asserts that, if we are to have an immortality it ought to be one in which we can mingle
with the purest of the
earth, for the anticipation of it would fill our minds with delight and would afford us the assurance that in
quitting this stage of life
it would only be an exchange for one, purer and loftier. But, pleasing as this ideal may be, consolatory as it
would undoubtedly
prove, it is useless to forget that our present knowledge teaches us that such hopes are only poetical, such
anticipations only
imaginary. We therefore sternly face the truth, and as some of us cannot believe in a future life, we seek to
realize the worth of
this one by striving to correct its many errors. And in so doing we are achieving the safest of all rewards --
the consciousness
that while here on earth we are working with sincerity and fidelity to secure that heaven of humanity, the
comfort, happiness
and welfare of the human race.

Through the lack of careful study, many errors obtain and strange misconceptions exist as to what the
terms "matter" and
"spirit" signify. We desire, therefore, to endeavor to explain what they really mean, and how far, and in
what they have any
relation to human conduct. For instance, are they both existences of which we have any knowledge? and if
so, do they exist
separately, or are they in any way related? When we affirm an existence, we mean an entity, that is
something that can be
recognized by the senses. Whatever we are incapable of recognizing, is to us non-existent. If attributes
only are affirmed, they
must belong to some entities, without which they are to us inconceivable; for in the absence of entities we
can have no
conception of attributes. Our entire knowledge consists of entities and their properties, qualities or
attributes, these latter being
the marks by which we distinguish one thing from another. It may be said that this position affirms that we
cannot form a
conception of anything apart from matter and force. It certainly does affirm this, which is precisely what we
insist upon, for
whatever the nature of the subject thought of may be, we cannot entertain any proposition unless the
terms employed are
capable of being defined and understood. conception of our minds implies not only a form of thought, but
an idea of the
something thought of. When we formulate a thought, it may be said that we at the same time define it,
that is, we lay down a
boundary, for to think of a thing is to limit it. If a man owns an estate it must be separated in some manner
from all other
estates, or he would be unable to identify his own from that of others. This consideration lies at the
foundation of all clear
reasoning, and however elementary it may appear to superior minds, it cannot be dispensed with when we
are forming a
judgment concerning any proposition as to alleged existences in the universe. If "there are many things in
heaven and earth than
are dreamt of in your philosophy they will never be apprehended in any other way than by the one here
indicated. If we giant
that matter and spirit are only symbols, as some people contend they are, we see no necessity in using
both terms. If, as it is
affirmed, spirit is separate from an entity, or its attribute or function, and yet exercises an influence over
any or all of the three, it
must follow that this spirit must be some force that can operate without any medium connecting things
that have no affinity or
relation to each other. This is equivalent to saying that we can transmit a message to America, not only
without a cable, but
without any conductor at all. To postulate spirit as the unknown is ignorance of what that cause is. But we
submit that these
assumptions amount to a clear contradiction, because they imply that after we have eliminated from the
totally of existence, all
entities, and their attributes and functions, there yet remains spirit. To think of something apart from
everything is beyond our
power, and to think of spirit in relation to anything, is to make it an entity or an attribute.

Matter may be defined as "that which occupies space and is recognized by the senses." But what is spirit? If
it can be
recognized it must be material, and if it cannot be recognized it is to us as nothing. We are aware that spirit
that spirit has been
defined as "refined matter," but in that case it would be material. We can, therefore, only act consistently
when we accept the
decision of the human intellect as applied to every proposition submitted to us. We Cannot, if we act wisely,
repudiate its
authority in judging of the highest conception of things. This is our standard of appeal upon all matters
material, or so-called
spiritual. We accept what appears true, after the most rigorous criticism, and we reject every error
immediately it is
discovered. For instance, we regard two truths as being established so far as our present knowledge
extends -- the
indestructibility of matter, and the invariable order of nature. By nature we mean all that is, because, so far
as is known, it has
no limit in space or time. The term spirit is not included in this definition, for the reason that we have no
conception of what it is.
If it exist, its claims to belief can only be established by one method, that of observation and experiment.
Should its claims be
thus successfully proved, Spiritualism will then cease to be distinguished from Materialism, inasmuch as it
will then be within our
conception of the established order of things. We fail to see how there can be two different kinds of truth in
the sense of there
being one that we can apprehend by our understanding, and another that we cannot. We are aware that
theologians assert that
there are two kind of truth, one within the reach of reason, and the other above it but we cannot believe
this theory, as no
sufficient reason has been given to justify us in accepting such a proposition. In reference to such
preposterous claims, we ask
the following pertitient questions -- If there is a truth above or beyond the reason of man to comprehend,
how can it become
known? Of course our inability to understand such a truth does not prove its non-existence, but it
disposes of our relation to it;
and consequently it is no truth to us.

In science it is the practice to explain things in materialistic terms and to adopt spiritualistic phrases is in
our opinion not only of
no advantage, but it tends to the confusion of ideas and leads many minds into the region of obscurity. We
see no justification
for ceasing to speak of matter as a form of thought and of thought as a property of matter, so ling as our
object is to indicate
what we think and feel. The main point that we are anxious to insist upon is that no unknown power or
powers should be
appealed to for the purpose of explaining the facts of existence when we are cognizant of forces that are
sufficient to achieve
the object. Moreover, an unknown power can only be of practical service to us if its manifestations admit of
verification, which
those of spiritualism do not. We therefore rely upon truths that are demonstrated by material processes,
for they give potency
and dignity to nature; that nature, be it observed, that may be termed the mother of all. From her bosom
we derive the
sustenance of life, the panacea for woes and wrongs, and the solace for misery and despair that too
frequently crush the hopes
of man and rob humanity of its highest glory and its noblest service.